Chapter Nine: The Case of the Ingenious A

 Chapter Nine: The Case of the Ingenious A

116. Law's 1800 house became the fulcrum of the New Varnum Hotel

Historians credit Thornton for designing the houses built by Thomas Law, General Washington and John Tayloe for which ground was broken in 1799. Thornton never claimed that he designed those houses. No contemporary credited him for designing those houses. But no one else claimed credit or was credited for designing those houses. Attributing them to Thornton serves the agenda of posterity. Legendary houses have a way have getting attached to legendary architects. Schools of architecture form around the great personalities and that shapes the future. But, so the story goes, a presidential call to another duty stunted Thornton’s career as an architect. Save for drawing a plan for Tudor Place in Georgetown in 1808 and for the university of Virginia in 1817, from 1802 to 1828 Thornton headed the Patent Office and supposedly fostered the mechanical genius of his countrymen.

Thornton’s brief career as an architect is akin to a lightning strike, with this added advantage: the Capitol and the Octagon remain. A 2025 on-line description of Tayloe’s house leaves no doubt of Thornton’s brilliance:

This three-story brick house breaks with the traditional late Georgian and early Federal house planning that preceded it. Many of the leading European architects of the late 18th century sought to achieve a new direction in architecture through a design philosophy that sought to combine simple, basic geometrical shapes while using a minimum of unnecessary decoration. Thornton, the Octagon’s architect, traveled extensively in both England and in France and was no doubt alive to this philosophy. Presented with a building site that did not lend itself readily to a stereotyped solution, Thornton took full advantage of his opportunity and brought to the new Federal City a building of startling freshness and originality which has never been surpassed.(1)

117. The Octagon in the 20th century

Given that, to attribute the design of the Octagon to William Lovering, an architect whose design philosophy was to please the client, is a sacrilege. It damns the history of architecture to mean considerations. It suggests that Tayloe saw that an oval room solved the problematic building lot and that “using a minimum of unnecessary decoration” went easier on the pocket book. As for the “new direction in architecture,” it might have reassured Tayloe to know that the nearest house to his, the President’s house, also had oval rooms, and that in his social set, oval rooms had become fashionable.

New country seats in France and Britain had them. In 1786, while on a prolonged stay in England, William Hamilton sent instructions on how to build Woodlands, then outside Philadelphia but now in that city's Fairmount Park. His mansion would have two notable oval rooms, a parlor and dining room. 

 

In 1798, Thomas Law decided to build a house in Lot 1 of Square 689 that like Tayloe’s lot faced an angled intersection, but on the other side of the city on New Jersey Avenue and C Streets SE. Roughly a hundred years after Glenn Brown decided Thornton designed Tayloe's house, C. M. Harris decided that Thornton designed Law's largest house, too. Law and Tayloe built their houses for different reasons. In 1795, Law had bought 350 building lots and was careful to get the commissioners to divide squares so that his lots were lined together. He had to build houses in bunches not only to profit from his investment but because he signed a contract, that he didn’t fully read, and that obliged him to build 166 houses. He planned to at least build some and provide the lots and finance a row of houses up New Jersey Avenue and along C Street to the west. Tayloe had bought one large lot in 1797 and decided around January 1799, that in anticipation of being elected to congress in May 1801, he would need a large house for his growing family, for entertaining, and ample room for stable and carriages.  For Harris, that both houses had oval rooms to satisfy building regulations was sufficient evidence.

Division Sheet for Square 689

 

They also both had the same practical architect, William Lovering. He would supervise the contractors who bossed the craftsmen and laborers. In a project seemingly as simple as building a house, it didn’t make to sense to pay for an elaborate chain of command. Lovering could make a relatively good living by overseeing as many projects as he could at the same time and that he could visit once a week or so. In an October 1798 letter to the commissioners, he would brag that he had  done that for two-thirds of the houses in the city. In an 1801 advertisement noted that “Wm. Lovering has been in the practice of drawing for and superintending great part of the Buildings in the City of Washington and its Vicinity.”

Obviously the “great part” of the houses in the city were not “of startling freshness and originality.” Of course, Law and Tayloe needed an experienced  builder. But that didn’t preclude them from asking Thornton for a design. He was not in “the practice of drawing.” But, as the legend goes, he solved architectural problems with strokes of genius. Law made a contract with Lovering in September 1798. Tayloe offered Lovering a contract in March 1799, but Lovering’s financial problems kept it from being signed. Tayloe wound up contracting with his lawyer in Georgetown who in turn hired Lovering to superintend construction of the house. Meanwhile, it was the best of times for Thornton to prove he could design a house as readily as he designed a Capitol. In September, with Hadfield gone, he informed his colleagues “I restored and accommodated to my original ideas, and furnished correspondent elevations and sections for the same, which have thus far been carried into execution, and as no material change is now contemplated it is presumed the whole will be completed upon the plan now adopted.”

Contracts specified the features of the house and assured best practices and best building materials but they did not necessarily require the superintending architect to supply the design. That left the door open for Thornton’s genius. However, the facility Lovering had when it came to “the practice of  drawing” promised visualizing the project before it began which had to be reassuring to Law and Tayloe. As it turned out, it also excited Thornton and he provided evidence that Lovering designed Law’s house. Indeed, he was the first to suggest that Lovering had talents beyond the ordinary.

By the spring of 1798, the Thorntons had become the best friends of the Thomas Laws and the Thomas Peters. Through Mrs. Law and Mrs. Peter, their husbands gained entree to Mount Vernon. In time, Thornton did too. In May, the Thorntons dined with the Washingtons at the Laws in their so-called second house on New Jersey Avenue which preceded the last and largest third house. His many two story houses are not enumerated. On the weekend of June 24, 1798, the Thorntons had tea with the Laws. That same weekend Thornton drafted the letter the commissioners sent to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering that explained why Hadfield was fired. He also drafted the personal letter to Pickering that he didn't send. Once again, Thornton explained Hadfield's insubordination in regards to the Executive office design, and that "the board applied to Mr. Lovering to calculate the expense of erecting such a building." After "Mr. Lovering," Thornton wrote and then crossed out "an ingenious A."

Evidently, the rhetorician realized that the secretary of state might misinterpret that aside as a complement relating to Lovering's plain Executive office design. What likely had impressed Thornton was the house design Law had just shown him.4 Why else would Thornton think that Lovering was an "ingenious A"rchitect the same weekend he had tea with Law?   

Once Law moved to the city in 1796, he became familiar with Lovering’s work. They were both English and while Law set himself to the impossible obligation of eventually building 166 houses, with most of them on New Jersey Avenue SE, Lovering had moved from building row houses on P Street SW to designing twenty and building ten two story town houses on South Capitol and N Streets. At that time, Law could not hire Lovering because he was a salaried employee first for Greenleaf, then Morris and then Nicholson. In October 1797, Lovering finally hung out his shingle, so to speak. In Washington, Georgetown and Alexandria newspapers, he advertised his skills as “Architect, Surveyor and Builder and c." including "to design and make drawings, plans and estimates..." In his Alexandria notice, he added to the headline "(From London)." Thanks to his wife being Martha’s grand daughter, Law was often at Mount Vernon where the Alexandria Advertiser was the newspaper of record.

In all the houses Lovering had worked on, he fulfilled the vision of his patrons. The store front windows on South Capitol were exceptional, and Greenleaf’s secretaire economic, Mr. Henry was impressed with a 32 foot long room that Lovering fit into one of Greenleaf’s townhouses. However, there is no evidence that Thornton knew anything about Lovering’s previous work. As for his work with the commissioners, no one then or now thought that his cheapening Hadfield's Executive office design was ingenious. Architectural historian Pamela Scott rues that instead of ''Hadfield’s sophisticated, up-to-date neoclassical building," the city got "a traditional, rather old-fashioned Georgian one." Lovering asked the board to hire him to build his design. But the board put his design out for bids and Lovering's was the third lowest. So Lovering did not show his ingenuity as a building contractor for the commissioners. In January 1798, the commissioners asked him to evaluate sashes offered by carpenters for the Capitol. He found that one needed an extra inch, with another static electricity might be a worry. As for the third, the molding was too thin. His ability to school everyone might make Lovering an ingenious carpenter but not an "ingenious A." That leaves a current project, the design for Law's house, as what likely was on Thornton's mind when he almost complimented Lovering.

However, according to the commissioners’ records, the lot for the house was surveyed on September 12 which raises the question: could Lovering have drawn a design for Law before the June 24th? On July 10, 1798, Lovering asked the commissioners to apply their payment for his Executive Office design as down payment on lot 12 in Square 691, southwest of the intersection of New Jersey Avenue and C Streets SE. He likely made the request because he knew Law was going to build on Square 689. That suggests that Law had discussed if not accepted Lovering's design by July 10.

In 1801, another client of Lovering's described how the architect designed and contracted to build houses. The Belgian emigre Henri Joseph Stier broke off negotiations with Benjamin Latrobe for a country mansion in nearby Maryland. Latrobe struck him as “one of those who do not finish their work." He sought out Lovering. In 1800, in a letter to Greenleaf, Law mentioned that “Steer” was staying in one of his houses. Perhaps Law told Stier about Lovering.

Stier's letters explained how Lovering tried to win a client. Lovering came, Stier wrote to his son, “expressly to show me three different plans, rather ingenious but complicated, and with unattractive facades.... He has proposed to direct my construction with such a plan as I will give him, to attend to the progress and the designs in detail, to come twice each week, and that if I want to hire enough workmen to finish it in twelve months, he will do it for $600....”

In her introduction to a collection of Stier's daughter's letters, Margaret Callcott writes that Lovering "was eager to make himself agreeable to the wealthy Belgium, and all during March [1801] he met regularly with the Stiers and gave them tours around completed houses around Washington." They signed a contract on March 24, 1801, a month after first discussing the project. Architectural historians give Lovering little credit for the design of Riverdale since Stier based the design on his house in Belgium.

Lovering might have started working on Law’s design around June 12. Of course, that Thornton reacted positively to an eccentric floor plan that squeezed two oval rooms, 32 feet and 28 feet long, into two stories of the four story townhouses doesn’t necessarily prove that it was Lovering design. It might have been Law’s idea drawn by Lovering, but it certainly wasn’t Thornton’s idea. Lot 1 in Square 689 faced two problems. Not only did it face an angled intersection, but it also had a slope angling down to the street in a way to require another story. An addendum to the contract, already 8 pages long, explained “It being found on examining the ground that Mr. Lovering will have an additional story to make….” The addendum authorized Lovering to correct the problem and also clarified what may have been sticking points not addressed in the contract as written by Lovering. It allowed that "any alteration in the above plan to be allowed for by either party as may be settled between themselves or arbitrators." It designated Hoban and another builder to “arbitrate on any points of dispute.” There was no lightning strike involved in the design of Law’s house. Law and Lovering were locked in the age old dance between patron and creator and Thornton was not even in the ballroom.

The contract is extant, though not widely known. Archivists mislabeled the eleven page document as being written "circa 1794," so it escaped the scrutiny of researchers interested in what Law was planning to build in 1798. The document begins "Particular description and manner of building a house for Thomas Law Esq. fronting the side of New Jersey Avenue and South C Street on Square 689 for $5800 as per drawings marked A.B.C.D.... " The document then specifies building materials, dimensions, and the use of latches, sashes, etc. The "elliptical rooms" are mentioned but not described save for their height, 12 feet and 10 feet respectively, and that their walls were to be framed by wood scantling. Unfortunately, drawings A.B.C.D. have not been found but they were likely Lovering's designs. The contract does not explicitly say that Lovering drew the designs.

A final scene that played out because of Lovering’s financial difficulties also excludes Thornton as having a part in the design. In that era, American law was kind to debtors in that suits dragged on which delayed payments of debts and penalties. However, it took money to fuel lawyers to fend off judgments and one slip up could be catastrophic for the debtor. Of course, creditors were more likely to have enough money to play a long game. In March 30, 1798, Lovering crowed in a letter to John Nicholson that he finally freed himself from the “clutches” of Carroll. That suit dated from 1794. Then in August, he wrote that Carroll was about to win another court judgment against him. Nicholson’s legion of creditors were Lovering’s bain. In 1796, when Lovering tried to pay for building supplies with Nicholson’s checks, they invariably bounced leaving Lovering was liable for the debt. In January 1798, Nicholson’s creditors had Lovering arrested for nonpayment. The judge would not let Lovering post bail because he did not own any property. The sheriff posted bail for him, which allowed him to dun Lovering for petty cash on demand. All this happened after the Maryland legislature’s relatively short annual session. That prevented him from getting relief under the state's new bankruptcy law until the legislature reassembled in December.

During the building season of 1798, Lovering faced two problems: How to make money without losing it all to Nicholson's creditors, and how to acquire property without paying for it with money. He was told that owning property would leave him less at the mercy of judges and sheriffs. In his contract with Law there is no mention of Lovering's fee. Instead, Law stipulated that "work to be payed for by Mr. Lovering's prices with contractors...."

Lovering still had two more payments to make to the board for the lot he bought near Law's houses. On October 4, he handed the board a letter protesting their not paying him more for his Executive Office design. He asked the board that future payments be used to cover two more annual payments on the lot. He was clutching at straws. The board had never said it would pay him more than $300, and it told him so. They advised him to take cash and not the lot. Lovering shot back, “I devoted Chearfully my time and Attention to the Office and have saved you at least 10,000 [for two office buildings] in particularizing the Building design and tho it would be natural for you Gentlemen unacquainted with the trouble of architectural details to under estimate my Services....”9 Would he have insulted Thornton if he had been involved in designing Law’s house?

Lovering’s letters to Nicholson are the only sources for what the architect did in 1799 and in none of those letters did he mention Law. By billing Joseph Clark $33,000 for building materials, Greenleaf had demonstrated how unmercifully the speculators could turn on their contractors. It behooved Lovering not tell Nicholson that he had made money or that he worked for someone like Law who had been threatening to sue the speculators soon after he paid Greenleaf $XX,000. The only evidence that Lovering did indeed build Law’s houses is a gleeful letter Law wrote the General about finalizing the contract for his house in late April 1799. Just a week before that, Lovering finally got bankruptcy protection.

However, in 1800, Law wrote a letter describing the house in glowing terms. He described its oval rooms but did not mention Lovering.

On the ground floor there is a handsome oval room 32 by 24 and a room adjoining 20 by 28 - the oval room is so handsomely furnished that I wish to leave the eagle round glasses, carpet and couches in them as they are suited to the room - above stairs is a dressing room and a bedroom 21 by 20 - a center room with a fireplace about 17 by thirteen, an oval room 30 by 25 - and a room 20 by 11 with a fireplace - the same upstairs - say 8 bed rooms or 7 bedrooms and an oval sitting room... It is warm in the winter and cool in the summer having all the southerly wind. General Washington was so pleased with it, that he said "I would never recommend to a wife to counteract her husband's wishes but in this instance, and I advise Mrs. Law not to agree to a sale"....10

However, Law also didn’t mention Thornton and it’s hard fit the busy design with the modern take on Thornton for  combining “simple, basic geometrical shapes while using a minimum of unnecessary decoration” In January 1800, two months after the General’s visit to the house, Mrs. Thornton described a visit to the house with her husband, Mrs. Law’s sister and her husband Thomas Peter. Mrs. Thornton described one of the oval rooms. That has been taken as evidence that Thornton designed Law’s house. C. M. Harris opines that "Thornton's role... is partially but substantially documented by his wife's diary for 1800." Pamela Scott puts it this way: "It was designed by William Thornton, and was 'a very pleasant roomy house' according to Anna Maria Thornton."

In her diary entry for January 12, a Sunday, Mrs. Thornton wrote that they found Law's house locked. So, they "entered by the kitchen Window and went all over it— It is a very pleasant roomy house but the Oval drawing room is spoiled by the lowness of the Ceiling, and two Niches, which destroy the shape of the Room….” Her only other mention of the house came on February 17: "Mr. Law is fixed in his new house and is quite pleased with it...."

Certainly, that Thornton climbed through the kitchen window to get inside suggests he had some authority, though his friendship with Law and his touring with Mrs. Law's sister might have given him sufficient license to do that. Pamela Scott puts it this way: "It was designed by William Thornton, and was 'a very pleasant roomy house' according to Anna Maria Thornton." But how does one account for Mrs. Thornton's criticism of the oval drawing room's low ceiling? Her husband likely informed her criticism of the room. In 1797, Thornton had written to Dr. Fothergill about the Capitol's as yet unbuilt grand oval vestibule that was 114 feet in diameter and "full of broad prominent lights and broad deep shadows." He originally called the grand oval vestibule “the dome.” Perhaps, when he saw the floor plan for Law’s house, he did not understand that the oval rooms would be 12 and 10 feet high. Fitting oval rooms into a five story townhouse was alien to Thornton's sensibilities, or it was only Mrs. Thornton who was so naive.

May 1800, Lovering owned the design for Law’s house in a newspaper advertisement: "William Lovering, Architect and General Builder – Begs leave to inform his friends and the public, that he has removed from the City of Washington to Gay Street, the next street above the Union Tavern in Georgetown, where he plans to estimate all manner of building, either with materials and labor, or labor only. Specimens of buildings suitable for the obtuse or acute angles of the streets of the City of Washington, may be seen at his home."

In Building the Octagon, Ridout quotes the ad and characterizes it as a mere builder taking advantage of what he was learning while building a house designed by a genius: "Supervising architect William Lovering attempted to capitalize on his experience with the unorthodox plan of the Octagon by soliciting other commissions for the eccentrically shaped lots so common in Washington." However, Lovering's ad did not merely offer "his experience." He offered to share "specimens of buildings," that is, plans and elevations to illustrate what could be built on angled lots. He was trying to get work based on his experience as a designer, not merely on his experience as a builder. Stiers’ letters explained how Lovering came to have specimens to share. He drew three different plans for a client.

Of course, the simple charm of the Octagon House is not only due to its two oval rooms. Also, if one man designed the two houses, there was time for a learning curve. Law’s house was designed several months before Tayloe’s, and ground was broken for the latter two weeks after the former. That the two undated and unsigned drawings Octagon floor plan wound up in Thornton’s papers is very suggestive. In 1799, Thornton had the better opportunity to learn and draw. While Lovering did have about a forty day or so window of calm to draw three designs for Tayloe, Lovering spent most the winter of 1798-99 trying to keep out of jail. However, Thornton’s tutor was the General whose relationship with Thornton on architectural matters had been problematical. The story of the General’s houses is the prologue to the story of Tayloe’s houses. If Thornton had designed the General’s houses, that would have impressed Tayloe.

In the summer of 1798, with money from congress in hand and work on both the Capitol's roof and the Executive office going smoothly, the commissioners parted ways and took vacations. Scott went to medicinal springs for his health. White went to his farm. Thornton visited Mount Vernon in early July. In August, Thornton gave a "plan" to Thomas Peter who, on August 26, then passed it on to the General who sent it back to Peter the next day without commenting on the plan: "Doctr Thorntons plan is returned with thanks; our love to Patsy." C. M. Harris and the editors of Washington's Papers have deduced that the plan in question was a design for conjoined townhouses on Capitol that he built to board congressmen. However, the plan in question was most likely for the national university. in January 1796, Thornton had told White that he was working on a "plan" for the National University and would pass it around to friends for comment. In his October 1797 letter to Dr. Fell, he had mentioned that General Washington asked him for a plan "on a general system of education.... I have begun a piece on the subject, which I hope to mature and finally publish, but the multifarious business I have on hand prevents me from finishing several papers."

Why would the General return a house plan to Peter the next day if he thought he might copy that plan for the houses he was thinking of building? He had good reason to immediately return a plan for the National University. Congress had tabled the memorial urging its creation. That setback was arguably the major embarrassment the General endured while he was president.

When the General decided to build the houses, he asked Commissioner White, not Thornton for help. He asked White to send him the prices of available lots on Capitol Hill. On September 6, White went with the board's surveyor to identify lots, had a map made, checked with his colleagues about prices and reported to the General on the 8th. On September 12, the General revealed his project in a letter to White. He boasted "I never require much time to execute any measure after I have resolved upon it." That suggests that he drew a design for his houses once he got the map of the lots without soliciting anyone's advice. He even wanted the commissioners to find a contractor to "dig the Cellars, & lay the foundation" that fall "(and the earlier the better)." Then next summer, he wanted two houses built together as that "will look better, & come cheaper than building them seperately or at different times...." Then he discussed the design of the house, even though he was "not skilled in Architecture, and perhaps know as little of planning." He wanted the houses "plain," and enclosed "a sketch, to convey my ideas of the size of the houses, rooms, & manner of building them; to enable you [the commissioners] to enter into the Contract." In closing the letter, he added "My plan when it comes to be examined, may be radically wrong; if so, I persuade myself that Doctr Thornton (who understands these matters well) will have the goodness to suggest alterations."

As it turned out, Thornton was not a quick student as he observed the hectic and demanding process required to get a town house built on time. Monumental architecture that Thornton thought he had mastered was quite different. As Thornton once put it, during the long building process he would have been able to see and correct his mistakes. Even designing country houses was different. Piecemeal construction far from a constant crowd of on-lookers could take years. The General did not tarry. For most of October he relied on the commissioners as a group until he signed a contract. Then he relied on Thornton, who rarely left the city, to transfer money to George Blagden, his contractor.

While he relied on the board, Thornton did not exactly shine and certainly proved that he didn't design Law or the General's house. But before that Thornton at least restored his self respect after his famous new friends ignored his architectural talents giving a wink and a nod for his taste. The General's parenthetical comment that if his design was improper Thornton “will have the goodness to suggest alterations,” has been taken a token of the General’s respect for Thornton. confirms posterity's take on Thornton. But the General's previous parenthetical comment challenges that take. He wanted work to begin that fall "(and the earlier the better)." While he never blamed Thornton specifically, he did fault design changes for delays in building the Capitol. That made clear to White that this project would not wait for dissentsto be filed. Then why did he mention Thornton at all? The General enjoyed the traveling English actors who brought tragedy and farce to provincial stages. Farces abound in asides. They are the one liners that double the laughter. White likely got the joke. He had to endure Thornton's pouting about a 50 foot high modallion. His latest was objecting to the board getting around their inability to find mahogany to make doors by giving pine doors a mahogany finish. Thornton insisted that "mahogany is recommended by the best writers in architecture." If the General really wanted Thornton to examine the plan why did he write to White? The general wanted a contractor to examine the plan and fill in the blanks, so to speak, as economically as possible. As it turned out, White immediately gave the floor plan to Thornton.

The board had to find a contractor, which was not White's forte. Alone with the plan, Thornton did not "suggest alterations." If he saw the General's letter to White, which he likely did given the board's spirit of collegiality, he never revealed his reaction to it. He must have been shocked that the General used White to arrange matters with the board. The elderly Virginia lawyer knew nothing about architecture and little about the city. Due to his wife's protestations, the president had excused White from having to move to the city. Thornton had designed the Capitol and had thoroughly studied the city plan, had taken levels of the city, contemplated its landscaping, and, most pertinent, had invested in the city while White had not. Constrained from writing an angry letter to the man he worshiped, Thornton reacted by finding a way to compensate for the blow and to at least restore his reputation in the eyes of his colleagues.

On April 5, 1793, when the board notified Thornton that the president had "given his formal approbation of your plan," they asked him to "be pleased to grant powers or put the business in a way of being closed on the acknowledgments your success entitles you." According to the prospectus, the winner had to choose between a medal worth $500 or $500, and would be awarded a lot "designated by impartial judges." Thornton took the money and evidently did nothing vis-a-vis the lot. On September 21, 1798, the day the General chose two lots, Thornton handed a letter to his colleagues asking that the board finally award him the prize lot. On October 1, 1798, Thomas Law and Notley Young, two advocates for the East side of the city, awarded Thornton a lot next to the General's. An obvious motive for arranging to get the lot was to profit from one of the most significant real estate transactions in the city's short history. The board sold the public lot to the General for $535.70. With the General building on it, the lots nearby would be worth much more. But Thornton was loath to give that impression.

He couched his letter to his colleagues in a way that made it seem that he was getting his due for making sure the North Wing conformed to his original design. To do that, he had to imply that the changes Hallet made to the design in July 1793 made his being awarded a lot problematical. So he wrote to the board that he had been prevented by motives of delicacy from requesting your attention to a claim which I have from my drawings for the capitol of the United States being approved by the late President of the United States and the commissioners, our predecessors, which plan, though deviated in some respects, I restored and accommodated to my original ideas, and furnished correspondent elevations and sections for the same, which have thus far been carried into execution, and as no material change is now contemplated it is presumed the whole will be completed upon the plan now adopted.

Scott and White, both lawyers, authorized his getting a lot, but didn't reply to his letter. Because they didn't contradict Thornton, in his 1914 history of the city, W. B. Bryan insisted that proved that Thornton had indeed restored his original design. However, having joined the board well after the July 1793 conference and after Thornton's plans went missing, Scott and White were in no position to judge and they did not ask the General or Hoban for their opinion. Evidently they did not even tell the General that Thornton was given a lot adjoining his. Thornton got the lot on October 1. The General paid for his two lots on October 3. Even though Thornton visited Mount Vernon for three days that week, Thornton did not break the news until he wrote to the General on October 25.

The General asked the board draw up a contract with Blagden and use their knowledge of suppliers and subcontractors to make sure he wasn't being cheated. Then the General bristled at Blagden's $12,982.29 estimate of the cost of the houses. He knew that Law had contracted to build a house, "not much if any less than my two," for under $6,000. He had calculated that his houses would cost $8,000, or $10,000 at most. So, he decided "to suspend any final decision until I see Mr Blagdens estimate in detail, with your observations thereupon; and what part of the work I can execute with my own Tradesmen, thereby reducing the advances."20 In their reply, signed by Thornton, the commissioners admitted that they were not "able to say whether the Estimate on that subject is reasonable or not.... Hoban is confined by indisposition, or we would have taken his opinion on Mr Blagdin’s Estimate."21 Thornton seemed as clueless as his colleagues and obviously had not designed the General or Law's houses. That same day Thornton may have counted it as a blessing that he knew so little about building houses.

Two weeks later, Thornton found the magic words that eased his relationship with the General. His letter is lost, perhaps destroyed. He didn’t mention the prize lot. The next day, the General thanked him "for the details - as I shall do on similar future occasions." Evidently, rather than play the pompous city planner or the architectural critic, Thornton shared the latest gossip with the General, but course, didn’t respond in kind. He did explain how he planned to lower the contracted price for the house by using his own "people" to do some of the carpentry. Thornton replied on the 25th with an offer to send a specimen of different moldings to Mount Vernon so that with models to work with, his people could shape the wood before they brought it to the city. Thornton added that he and White had "formed a contract, with which Mr. Blagdin will wait on you." That gives the impression that Thornton chose the molding. However, the General had asked the commissioners to form a contract only after some back and forth between Blagden and the General. He had asked them to simply "cause efficient articles to be drawn under your Inspection & correction." He had not asked them to change the specifications regarding the molding detailed by Blagden. Thornton never sent molding to Mount Vernon. The General balked at "sending Negro Carpenters to the City, and having them to provide for there." As it turned out, the General asked Thornton to write the final signed contract because he was a county magistrate with "stamped paper," and it was signed on November 5. To have it notarized by another might have cost the General 75 cents a page. It is seven pages long. The draft of the contract that Blagden took to Mount Vernon was not in Thornton's hand writing.

In his October 25 letter, Thornton finally found a way to tell the General that he own the neighboring lot. It could save him money. Thornton to build a three story brick house “or Houses on a similar plan” next door and assume the full cost of the party wall. He prefaced his offer by revealing that "the Board allowed me the lot adjoining yours (it being awarded to me by Messrs. Young and Law for the premium which I had not demanded from motives of Delicacy, but which I was entitled to for my plans of Capitol.)" Did Thornton answer the parenthetical dig at his reputation in the General's letter to White, with a parenthetical riposte? In his letters, he rarely used parentheses. He did get a lot, but his letter did not ignite a discussion, let alone a celebration of his restoration of his design. The Capitol seemed parenthetical to those gentlemen. Or, did he merely try to gain some credit from the General without claiming, as he did in his letter to his colleagues, that "no material change is now contemplated it is presumed the whole will be completed upon the plan now adopted." The General had never acknowledged that and had never endorsed the elevation then hanging in Thornton's parlor.22

Mentioning the party was a bit of a stretch. Thornton confessed to a temporary lack of funds and would not be able to build until he recovered from “some late heavy losses; not in Speculations, but matters of Confidence, to the amount of between four and five thousand Dollars...." He was likely alluding to his inability to mortgage his share of the Tortola plantation. In reply, the General promised to share the cost of the party wall and authorized Thornton to get specifications from the contractor. He also found a way to assuage Thornton's obvious desire to have something to do with the houses: “as you reside in the City, and [are] always there, and have moreover been so obliging as to offer to receive the Bills and pay their amount (when presented by Mr Blagden) I will avail myself of this kindness." And that was all that Thornton did. In a 1799 letter to his old Lancashire friend Thomas Wilkinson, he wrote: "The late President General Washington, who appointed me here, continues to honor me with his particular friendship. I frequently visit and am visited by this great and good man, besides corresponding. He is now building two Government Houses in this city, and has confided to me his money transactions here, as a friend...."Would Thornton have concealed from Wilkinson that he had designed and was supervising construction of the houses?23

In diary entry for January 3, 1800, Mrs. Thornton did note in regards to the General's "The money paid to the undertaker of them having all gone through my husband's hands, he having superintended them as a friend." In her history of Capitol Hill, Pamela Scott claims that Thornton "suggested alterations to Washington's design for his double houses and oversaw their construction." One of the suggested alterations was the never built party wall. The other violated a building regulation. The General made fun of the architectural critic. In a December 20 letter, the General decided to modify in his design: "I saw a building in Philadelphia of about the same front and elevation that are to be given to my two houses, which pleased me. It consisted also of two houses united - doors in the center - a pediment in the roof and dormer window on each side of it in front - skylights in the rear. If it is not incongruous with rules of architecture, I should be glad to have my two houses executed in this style."

Thornton wrote back: "it is a desideratum in architecture to hide as much as possible the roof - for which reason in London, there is a generally a parapet to hide the dormer windows. The pediment may with propriety be introduced, but I have some doubts with respect to its adding any beauty" The General replied: "Rules of architecture are calculated, I presume, to give symmetry, and just proportion to all the orders, and parts of the building, in order to please the eye. Small departures from strict rules are discoverable only by skilful architects, or by the eye of criticism, while ninety-nine in a hundred - deficient of their knowledge - might be pleased with things not quite orthodox. This, more than probable, would be the case relative to a pediment in the roof over the doors of my houses in the city."24

The General also schooled Thornton.  He reminded him to get the contractors to paint sashes before installing them, instructed him on the proper mixture of sand in the paint for the walls and lectured him on plaster of Paris. After that last lesson, Thornton referred Washington to a pamphlet on the subject written by a Pennsylvania judge. While president, the General had asked the judge to do the research and write the pamphlet. Mrs. Thornton’s January 21, 1800 entry makes her husband's role clear. The General died on December 14. His executors met that morning. So, "very early in the morning," Thornton sent his slave Joe Key to see Blagden and get the information requested which amounted to "his account of the money he had received...." The houses had not been finished, but Thornton’s friendly service was no longer needed.

The contract Lovering signed with Law called for a parapet. Tayloe's house would also have a parapet. Law, Lovering, Tayloe and Thornton were familiar with London standards. or Thornton who had just spent two nights at Mount Vernon. Of course, the one factor that might have prompted Thornton to help Tayloe was the challenge of a design for an angled lot. Indeed, since he knew how Lovering solved it for Law, ideas might have spontaneously percolate in the genius’ brain. But in the fall of 1798, Thornton tried to salvage his reputation as an architect not by offering more of Dr. Thornton’s ideas. He was less a genius and more a desperate opportunist. He manufactured an opportunity to get his colleagues and the General to credit for  making his design the operable design for the Capitol. In the winter of ‘98, when Tayloe might have appreciated ideas, Thornton once again tried to destroy a potential rival.

In January 1799, Thornton set out to seal his fame as the architect of the Capitol by getting rid of Hoban. When congress came in 1800, he would be the last architect standing. The effort somewhat backfired. That is to say, he was ridiculed by contemporaries but historians are more understanding. In 1802, Commissioner White recalled in a letter to President Jefferson, "both of the my colleagues were desirous of getting Hoban out of the way and amazing exertions were made to find something in his conduct which would justify them in dismissing him."25 Thornton was the instigator, not Scott. He moved for an investigation of a charge that Hoban fired a carpenter because he would not join the artillery militia. There was no second. Then Thornton broadened the investigation and Scott joined him. In February 1799, the board asked carpenters and joiners for complaints against both Hoban and Redmund Purcell who played such a large role in getting Hadfield out of the way. Scott thought he was the source of a rumor that he stole building materials from the public stores for his own house. The board soon charged Purcell for not properly supervising men working under him during the winter. He even paid slave sawyers their shilling a day while doing little work. Purcell asked for time to prepare a defense. The board gave him two days and then fired him when he didn't appear before a board of carpenters chosen to hear his case. Commissioner White, a lawyer, didn't like that rush to judgment.

Meanwhile, when Hoban heard that the board had received letters from workers impugning his conduct, he asked the board to share that evidence. The investigation centered on the complaints of an English joiner, Joseph Middleton, who claimed that Hoban did not provide the drawings and materials he needed to build shutters that the board hired him to build. On March 12, Hoban explained that he had given Middleton what he needed to make doors and doubted he had time to make shutters.

As the investigations continued, the board ordered Hoban to estimate the cost of getting the Capitol in a state to receive congress in December 1800. He had done annual estimates for work on the President's house that the board had sent to congress, but he had designed and supervised construction of that building. He replied that he could not very well estimate expenses at the Capitol for the coming season because he had no "plan or sections of the building to calculate by, nor the parts in detail, all which should be put into the hands of the superintendent." Hoban knew of that requirement because he too had been a design contest winner.

The board did not react or respond to his letter. Unlike Purcell, Hoban asked the board to begin hearing evidence at once and that process continued until April 9. Then in an April 12 letter to White, Purcell announced his determination "to pour broadsides" into the hulls of Thornton and Scott. He attacked "the fribbling quack architect who smuggled his name to the only drawing of sections for the Capitol ever delivered to the commissioners' office, made out by another man." There were also no updated plans based on the work already done, and Thornton should draw them. In his attack, Purcell mentioned Thornton's extant elevation, but it was not in the hands of the superintendent: "The original plan is hung as a trophy to science in his [Thornton's] parlor." The letter was published on April 16.26

On April 15, Hoban asked the board for "drawings necessary for carrying on the following work at the Capitol, viz. 1st. The East entrance and staircase, 2nd. The Elliptic staircase, 3rd. The back staircase, 4. The Representatives Chamber, 5. The Senate Chamber." This time the board reacted to Hoban's request. White had already signaled his sympathy for Hoban, and evidently persuaded Scott to stop the investigation. Why did Scott switch?

In 1802, congress abolished the board. President Jefferson then appointed its clerk to take over the commissioners' duties, which for the moment entailed only accommodating the government and not finishing the Capitol and President's house. To save money and because he was not needed, the new superintendent gave Hoban notice. He hired Maryland's leading lawyer and threatened to sue on the grounds that the board had renewed his contract in 1801 on condition that he work until the Capitol and President's house "shall be finished." That puzzled the president who then asked White about Hoban's reaction to being fired. White didn't recall the contract renewal which he never would have approved. He had not seen Hoban since leaving the board but did opine that in 1799, if his colleagues had fired Hoban, he "would then have disputed their right,..."  In 1799, White likely persuaded lawyer Scott that Hoban's case against Thornton for dereliction of duty was likely stronger than any case that could be made against Hoban who had built the President's house and was finishing the North Wing of the Capitol.

White and Scott passed Hoban's request on to Thornton and reminded him that in 1795, he had written a letter to his colleagues assuring them that he would provide drawings to carry on the work. They also noted that doing so was an obligation of the design contest winner. Indeed, "your letter of 17th of November 1795 admits the principle." That suggests that Thornton had never practiced that principal. If he had, his colleagues could simply ask him to supply the drawings as usual.
Thornton wrote the draft of his reply to his colleagues on April 17. He began by pointing out that he had already made enough drawings and that he was on hand to give advice. He reminded them that the "late Superintendent," meaning Hadfield, was "expressly engaged to furnish the detailed drawings.…" No historian has produced an example of Thornton sketching something for Hadfield to draw. He didn’t, for example, sketch the Capitol roof and relied on forcing Hadfield to stipulate in writing that the roof would not be higher than the balustrade.

Thornton found an ingenious way to split hairs and free himself from any principle that he should make drawings in order to get the Capitol ready for congress. He reminded the board that it "had determined not to finish the rooms in a splendid and expensive style at present but in a plain manner...." He argued that such "plain" expedients to get the building ready for use were not part of his design and not his responsibility. The stairways were to be temporary and made of wood. They were an expedient. Otherwise, he would be anxious to make drawings. He evidently forgot that in his November 1795 letter he had written "...I promise to supply such drawings hereafter, as may be deemed sufficient for the prosecution of the Capitol, and in time to prevent any delay whatever."

Then he launched into a written description of features in each room. For the Senate chamber, he wrote: "I propose that the columns be executed in the ancient Ionic order with the volutes curved in the middle over the column and with an astragal below the volutes to form a neck to the column: the shaft of the column plain - the entablature full but plain and without modillions." That's not exactly from Chambers who described Ionic columns with "angular volutes with an astragal and fillet below the volute." Chambers at least provided a glossary. A volute is a scroll. An astragal is "a small moulding whose profile is semi-circular." Thornton wished marble for the columns but accepted substitutes.

He thought one of the walls of the library, which was to be the House's temporary chamber, "ought to be taken down." He explained how timbers could be supported in another way and where to form an arch to create a "lighted closet," but he offered no drawings. He noted times when the board had asked Hoban for drawings, and suggested that doing drawings had always been Hoban's job. However, Hoban asked for drawings and his colleagues reminded him of his promise to make drawings. On April 18, Thornton's colleagues asked Hoban to make the necessary drawings "as conveniently you can."27 

On the next day, Thornton wrote to the General that Tayloe has contracted to build a house near the President’s house for $13,000. On March 9, Lovering mentioned a contract with a “gentleman in Virginia.”